a) 4004 BC refers not to the original creation but the re-creation after the
Gap in Gen 1,1 .
b) He does allow a day-age but prefers 6 24 hr days after the Gap
c) "The first creative act refers to the dateless past and gives scope for
all the geologic ages."
d) Scofield is silent about the Flood - simply no comment.I had never
checked this before and find the silence deafening. Presumably a limited
flood was ok as itr was to most fundamentalists in 1910 (but dont tell AiG
Please note that the Gap Theory of Scofiedl was a crude rewrite of the Chaos
Rstitution Theory which was the dominant orthodox viewpoint from 1600 to
c1860 and held by Boyle, Ray, Whiston etc, Pantcelyn (writer of Guide me o
thou great redeemer - he developed this in his epic poem Golwg ar Deyrnas -
in Welsh !) and later developed by Chalmers or rather he nicked it and took
the credit. Sorry I have a paper on this coming out in the Evangelical
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Clarke" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:44 AM
Subject: Scofield Bible (was Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis)
> Hi Gordon
> Thanks for the more detailed reference to what the Scofield Bible actaully
> don't have one to hand. Interesting then that the original edition
> Ussher's chronology, the gap theory and the day-age interpretation.
> support of all three horses kept all three in the race up to the time when
> superficially plausible YEC of Whitcomb and Morris came along. What does
> Scofield Bible say about the flood?
> gordon brown wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> > The footnotes of the original edition of the Scofield Bible published
> > early in the twentieth century supported the gap theory, which allows
> > an indeterminate period of time prior to the supposed ruin of creation
> > to Satan. It also had a footnote saying that the word day did not have
> > mean 24 hours. On the other hand, it also included Ussher's chronology.
> > The revision published about fifty years later omitted the gap theory
> > the chronology but retained the footnote about the meaning of day as I
> > recall. Thus I don't think the effect of the Scofield Bible was to make
> > people intolerant of the idea of an old earth.
> > Gordon Brown
> > Department of Mathematics
> > University of Colorado
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
> > > Good question Graham. I wonder if HM and JW have navels?
> > >
> > > My reading of writers on the pre HM period (Numbers, Moore, Ramm and
> > > Livingstone) is that there was no institutional awareness that the age
> > > earth was a fundamental issue amongst anyone except SDAs and Missouri
> > > Lutherans. Most books on the subject would have argued either a "day
> > > "gap" perspective. Organic evolution was more widely seen to be an
> > > however. There was a lot of grass roots support for YEC though,
> > > because of the influence of the Scofield Bible, something that Numbers
> > > not really take into account, dealing with the more formal writings of
> > > leaders and thinkers. The grass roots support or sympathy for young
> > > flood geology, and anti-evolutionary ideas prepared the ground for
> > > and Morris.
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 10:19:52 EDT